On public engagement and "bridging the gap"
In the last couple of years, the phrase "bridging the gap" has become part of the everyday lexicon of academics in our field (I don't know if this applies to, say, anthropology). This term is part and parcel of a larger conversation regarding how "useful" and "relevant" scholarship in IR and poli sci (a) is, and (b) should be. Without getting mired into the depths of that conversation, I would like to make four points in this blog post.
1. The biggest thing anyone can do to "bridge the gap" is not change incentives of scholars but of journals and publishers
There is more than enough policy-relevant scholarship (however one chooses to define that phrase) out there. It just can't be read because normal human beings don't want to jump through 29373 hoops and a $50 credit card charge to read stuff. I personally close my browser window if so much as a log-in screen pops up (goodbye, Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs, we had a good run).
This was hammered home to me one evening a few years ago, when I was hanging out with a couple of very good journalists in Karachi. I asked the pair how much they use tools like google scholar when doing their work. They said basically not at all, and cited the issue above: no one is going to pay that much for one article. These were two journalists who really valued academics and what they do; if they were not going to use our work, no one was.
Two personal data points in support of this thesis. I co-authored an article with Paul Staniland and Dann Naseemullah on the Pakistan military and we asked the publisher to make it free access. In a total coincidence, it racked up almost 10,000 views and became one of the top ten most read articles ever by the journal in question (JSS). I then wrote an article on the Iraq war, and again asked the publisher to make it free access, for a few months at least. They granted my wish, and voila, it's the sixth most read article in SS. I know this is a crazy idea, but if you make stuff free, people will find it easier to read and therefore more people will read it. And yes, RIP Aaron Swartz.
A hilarious aside on this was that in the back and forth over my requests to make the Iraq war piece free, someone at Taylor and Francis misinterpreted my request since I used the term "open access" instead of "free access". They earnestly told me that all it would take to make it open access was a smooth deposit of "$2950 USD/€2275 EUR/£1895 GBP/$3226 AUD (excluding VAT where applicable)." Lol just lol at them thinking that was a realistic possibility. Guys, I think I would rather take two vacations with my wife for the same amount of cash, thanks.
2. People are crazy
Like really crazy. When you talk or write about issues in the public eye, and you happen to be on social media (and even if you are not), you will really get it. Here are excerpts from emails I received last week. To be fair, this was not correspondence regarding scholarship, but a tweet I wrote (and stand by) regarding the inadvisability of the newest US Supreme Court justice being hired by GMU's law school. Either way, just to give you a sense, please read on:
Email 1
Email 2
Email 3
Email 4
This last one was my favorite, because only a Breitbart right wing idiot would confuse a Muslim and a Jew or describe female college students as "comely undergraduate co-eds". Now, you could say I was "asking for it" and that none of this would happen if I stuck to opining about scholarly matters, but you would be wrong, because even when I tweet about research and serious writing I have done on anything related to India-Pakistan, Islamism, Imran Khan, the Taliban etc, I have gotten similar vitriol, just with a different set of pejoratives.
Here's my point: an unavoidable by-product of "bridging the gap" and "engaging the public" is hearing all sorts of insults. This is not a trivial cost and probably should be discussed more by people who encourage academics to be less cloistered. I had to make my Twitter private, shut off notifications from people who didn't follow me, and remove my email address from my website until the idiot storm blew over. It did (for now) but who knows what next time is like.
3. Hearing normal feedback is great
I've gotten lucky with the aforementioned Iraq war article, which led to some great emails and correspondence. I heard from other academics and people in the military and a lot of "random" folks who had an opinion or link or video to share. To be sure, some of it was loopy ("it was about oil!") but most of it was not, and it was something I really, really appreciated. I replied to all non-crazy feedback and felt good doing so. I wish it could always be like that, but see point 2.
4. Policymakers don't really give a damn
Of all the conceits (some) academics harbor, it is that scholarship and research can guide policy. Come on guys. Are you being serious? Out of all the scholarly communities in the world, political scientists more than anyone should be aware of the laundry list of things that a decision-maker or leader cares about before "expertise and research". Things like "does this help me get re-elected?" or "does this help my son's business?" or "does this make me feel good?" or "does this piss off my opponents?" are questions wayyyyyy more likely to be determinative than "what does the latest APSR have to say about all this?" Please let's have some humility and real sense of the limits of what we do.
1. The biggest thing anyone can do to "bridge the gap" is not change incentives of scholars but of journals and publishers
There is more than enough policy-relevant scholarship (however one chooses to define that phrase) out there. It just can't be read because normal human beings don't want to jump through 29373 hoops and a $50 credit card charge to read stuff. I personally close my browser window if so much as a log-in screen pops up (goodbye, Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs, we had a good run).
This was hammered home to me one evening a few years ago, when I was hanging out with a couple of very good journalists in Karachi. I asked the pair how much they use tools like google scholar when doing their work. They said basically not at all, and cited the issue above: no one is going to pay that much for one article. These were two journalists who really valued academics and what they do; if they were not going to use our work, no one was.
Two personal data points in support of this thesis. I co-authored an article with Paul Staniland and Dann Naseemullah on the Pakistan military and we asked the publisher to make it free access. In a total coincidence, it racked up almost 10,000 views and became one of the top ten most read articles ever by the journal in question (JSS). I then wrote an article on the Iraq war, and again asked the publisher to make it free access, for a few months at least. They granted my wish, and voila, it's the sixth most read article in SS. I know this is a crazy idea, but if you make stuff free, people will find it easier to read and therefore more people will read it. And yes, RIP Aaron Swartz.
A hilarious aside on this was that in the back and forth over my requests to make the Iraq war piece free, someone at Taylor and Francis misinterpreted my request since I used the term "open access" instead of "free access". They earnestly told me that all it would take to make it open access was a smooth deposit of "$2950 USD/€2275 EUR/£1895 GBP/$3226 AUD (excluding VAT where applicable)." Lol just lol at them thinking that was a realistic possibility. Guys, I think I would rather take two vacations with my wife for the same amount of cash, thanks.
2. People are crazy
Like really crazy. When you talk or write about issues in the public eye, and you happen to be on social media (and even if you are not), you will really get it. Here are excerpts from emails I received last week. To be fair, this was not correspondence regarding scholarship, but a tweet I wrote (and stand by) regarding the inadvisability of the newest US Supreme Court justice being hired by GMU's law school. Either way, just to give you a sense, please read on:
Email 1
You are a weasly little sand monkey; diaper head; camel jockey (you choose). You aren't fit to wash out the Judge's BVDs. How someone of your obvious limited intellect could even be associated with a major university is beyond me. Your last name fits you, but you petition the court to add "head" at the end; it would suit you better.
Email 2
Your parents must be mortified. You need to seek psychological treatment and remove yourself from spreading your irrational and unfounded hate to impressionable minds.
Email 3
You are a political propagandist with no integrity at all and represent the lowest and most appalling form of extremism this country has ever seen! How dare you spread your vile horse shit about this great man! Just go away, America is sick of your type!
Email 4
Hi asshole. I guess you didn't get the memo that Brett Kavanaugh was exonerated after being smeared in front of the world by a charlatan and Democrat Party operative? You fucking idiot: every man has the presumption of innocence, and when that man is exonerated by a careful parsing of his testimony, and by the report of an independent, outside public prosecutor, maybe the aforesaid man deserves to have his name cleared, and to teach at Antonin Scalia Law School. But I also understand why you wrote what you did. You're probably one of those insidious crypto-jews undermining the marrow of American higher education. Or, you're one of those gutless beta male cucks who thinks that smearing, deriding, and back-stabbing other men when they're falsely accused of sexual assault will help you "make it" with comely undergraduate co-eds. You're programmed to say and write certain things reflexively because, frankly, that's the only way you can survive, both professionally and on an individual level. Guys like you demand free speech for yourselves, and due process for yourselves, but eagerly deny it to others. Fucking asshole. You're a coward, a classroom bully, a nullity in your field, and a shallow poser. Go play in traffic.
This last one was my favorite, because only a Breitbart right wing idiot would confuse a Muslim and a Jew or describe female college students as "comely undergraduate co-eds". Now, you could say I was "asking for it" and that none of this would happen if I stuck to opining about scholarly matters, but you would be wrong, because even when I tweet about research and serious writing I have done on anything related to India-Pakistan, Islamism, Imran Khan, the Taliban etc, I have gotten similar vitriol, just with a different set of pejoratives.
Here's my point: an unavoidable by-product of "bridging the gap" and "engaging the public" is hearing all sorts of insults. This is not a trivial cost and probably should be discussed more by people who encourage academics to be less cloistered. I had to make my Twitter private, shut off notifications from people who didn't follow me, and remove my email address from my website until the idiot storm blew over. It did (for now) but who knows what next time is like.
3. Hearing normal feedback is great
I've gotten lucky with the aforementioned Iraq war article, which led to some great emails and correspondence. I heard from other academics and people in the military and a lot of "random" folks who had an opinion or link or video to share. To be sure, some of it was loopy ("it was about oil!") but most of it was not, and it was something I really, really appreciated. I replied to all non-crazy feedback and felt good doing so. I wish it could always be like that, but see point 2.
4. Policymakers don't really give a damn
Of all the conceits (some) academics harbor, it is that scholarship and research can guide policy. Come on guys. Are you being serious? Out of all the scholarly communities in the world, political scientists more than anyone should be aware of the laundry list of things that a decision-maker or leader cares about before "expertise and research". Things like "does this help me get re-elected?" or "does this help my son's business?" or "does this make me feel good?" or "does this piss off my opponents?" are questions wayyyyyy more likely to be determinative than "what does the latest APSR have to say about all this?" Please let's have some humility and real sense of the limits of what we do.
Comments
Post a Comment