At the risk of declaring oneself a public "intellectual" (The Ticker):

Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times riled many scholars with a column in Sunday’s newspaper that laments what he perceives as the disappearance of intellectuals from the national stage.

Mr. Kristof writes that there are some exceptions to his assertion but adds that, “over all, there are, I think, fewer public intellectuals on American university campuses today than a generation ago.”

“A basic challenge is that Ph.D. programs have fostered a culture that glorifies arcane unintelligibility while disdaining impact and audience,” he argues. “This culture of exclusivity is then transmitted to the next generation through the publish-or-perish tenure process. Rebels are too often crushed or driven away.”

Many observers took to Twitter (see the hashtag #EngagedAcademics) and their blogs to fire back at Mr. Kristof. …

Read the rest to see some of the outrage … "hey, we have a blog!" "there are newspaper columns!" But I agree mostly with Kristof. Engaging the public with outreach economics (blogs, community talks) is something only an embarrassingly small fraction of economics professors wants to do*. I disagree when he points to PhD programs and the tenure process as being a large part of the problem. PhD programs don't create automotons who can only speak inbred research gibberish. They generally create articulate researchers who can also teach (I say that with the caveat that I don't know many people at the top progams, they may well be automotons). In terms of the tenure process, this might be old fashioned but an assistant professor should focus on building a vita before s/he turns more of their attention to outreach. The pre-tenure years are only a small chunk of the time one has in a career. The bigger problem is that there is little pecuniary incentive to engage in outreach as part of your job on campus. 

In our little corner of outreach we always had hopes that we might be able to attract many more bloggers. We've had a number of guest bloggers over the years but no one has really wanted to make this part of their life's work (for a counter example, see Zetland) or they have their own blog. It can't hurt to make the offer again. If you think you have something to say and might like to become a blogger without incurring all of the fixed costs, think about becoming a regular contributor to the Environmental Economics blog. Shoot me an email if you have any interest and we can set it up. One to two posts a week every other quarter (in GDP terms, not the academic calendar) and we'll be happy to add your name to the left hand column! And, obviously, the posts need not always be all that serious-minded. 

*Note: I know 125+ environmental and resource economists who are willing to write for a general audience.

Posted in ,
  1. PaulS Avatar

    I find this rather amusing/bemusing in a way. I see little to argue vehemently against in the original column – nor among the comments quoted in The Ticker. On the whole, they really don’t seem all that mutually exclusive even if many of the authors think otherwise. The instinct to jam arguments into black-and-white mutually-exclusive boxes may be one part of the problem.
    On the other hand, academic research nowadays does tend to be put into mind-numbing abstruse terms – then, to boot, concealed behind sky-scraping paywalls (the $$$ being paid in return for nothing.) If one fails to launch straight into mathematical obscurantism, sometimes over very simple principles, then I suppose that one is, alas, not “tenure-track material”. And there must be a bazillion post-docs, adjuncts, and assistants for every tenured slot, so if you are one of that bazillion, be very, very careful.
    With respect to “pecuniary incentive”, in the wider world that is, as I noted elsewhere, concentrated almost entirely into twerking exercises and the like – winner-take-all, “promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts” be damned. Nary a dime left over for anything less than “world-class”, “entertaining” stuff.
    So the incentive will have to be found in some narrower world. But it seems just from what’s cited in the post that there’s an endless finger-pointing exercise over “outreach”, which is always someone else’s job, sometimes for what seem like the best of reasons (even if said reasons seem a bit “old-fashioned”). The very word “outreach” conveys an air of frivolous lack of “focus”. And if the business schools are to be believed, you’re either “laser-focused”, or else dead.
    I suppose that to change anything, some folks in the (bloated) administrative hives would have to decide that “outreach” or whatever we might call it is part of their job. Or someone would have to tell them to make it part of their job.
    Fat chance? Deadlock?

  2. Tim Haab Avatar

    If I don’t figure out a way to start blogging again (it’s annual review season, combined with teaching and college search), you might have to REMOVE my name from the left-hand column.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Environmental Economics

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading