thinking is the new black

It is the law when you are a PhD student that you must procrastinate and moan about doing a PhD. Obviously technological innovations such as myspace, blogs and forums have helped this enormously. It is also lucky for me that the study of technology from a social shaping P.O.V is also partly the subject of my research. I can therefore fanny about on social networking spaces, tinker with new software on my mac-mini and listen to random podcasts under the guise of investigating new social trends and shifts in behaviour. Marvellous.

I would like to present to you “escapades in academia” with an all-star cast of me and err me, since the loneliness of the long distance researcher is a well-known phenomenon. There will however be guest appearances from characters to be known as a) the long suffering b.f, who also suffers from an empathy deficiency with the daily grind of the post grad heroine b) Moaning Nora, a bitter social scientist who has lost her mojo in the cruel ruthless world of ‘The Institution’ c) The Super Duper Visors, similar to the gods in Jason & the Argonaughts and finally the mystical spectre that is simply known as the real world or sometimes collectively as the others

So let me begin with today – actually let me begin with last night which is where my day usually starts with the practise of forming a series of mental notes about getting up early, finally completing a backlog of marking of undergraduate assignments, then embarking on a day of genius thoughts, and skilful writing up of said genius thoughts all set to a backdrop of healthy eating, eco-friendly living and the general accomplishment of a long list of useful household tasks, and a social engagement to boot. This of course rarely happens, but I feel very strongly that a documentation of the reality-soap /blog hybrid will help things along and if the research all goes tits up, perhaps I can conduct some sort of discourse analysis to try to understand where it all went wrong.

Teenagers are better understood. Traffic wardens are more popular.

I presented a paper in the digital divide stream at the annual British Sociological Association conference last week, and one of the hot topics was the role of the public intellectual. The debate even made the front page of the Times Higher on Friday 13th.

Obviously as the article (by Rebecca Atwood and the quote from Professor Mitzel at Leicester University) pointed out – academics need to have something worthwhile to say in the first place, but Professor Mitzel also suggested that society and the greater good would benefit from drawing on academic research and taking what intellectuals have to say much more seriously.

It went on to say that academics need to take responsibility in preventing ivory tower syndrome, and to diverge from the confines of ‘in the know’ audiences or people who already have the capacity to understand the research i.e. other academics. They also need to take care with the sometimes obscure or obtuse language research is written in and present ideas in a way that suits different and wider audiences, but does not undermine or reduce the ideas. Yep yep, I concur, sounds good to me. I think there certainly is room in the UK for more public intellectuals, and it seems to me at the heart of the matter is the issue of communication and more specifically communication style.

Sociology and perhaps academia as a whole needs a big PR makeover. There are bridges to repair with media and policy makers, and indeed some compromises will have to be made in terms of the timescale rigorous research takes to turn around, language style, transparency etc etc so I was quite suprised at the right old hoohaa these suggestions seemed to stir up at the B.S.A do. I am not sure I understand the academic community’s own reluctance to make a few conciliations & changes? We need to roll with the homies and get down with the kids or risk only being invited to a dinosaurs picnic for the rest of our lives. Whats the big deal?

Part of what the Soc-sci community (myself included) investigate and try to understand is all about shifts in the way people perceive themselves and are understood by others in contemporary society, and how the role of the media and new technologies inform and drive these shifts. Well I do and I am anyway. So why on earth can’t sociology apply that knowledge to itself?

It time to get with the programme and realise that contemporary society has a new communication style and to reject it using an elitist or class based arguments of dumbing down, commodification and celebrification is to do intellectual thinking a disservice. It’s not a privilege to communicate research – it is a duty. And lets face it being able to write your ideas in plain English is a far cry from being papped in the pages of Heat or Grazia. There is quite a big gap between ideas and entering into public debate in a way the public can comprehend and the shallow ego driven persuit of celebrity for it’s own sake.

A follow up article ‘The UK’s unloved elite’ further in the paper really struck a personal cord with me, having more than once felt completely misunderstood or dismissed because of what I do (someday I will tell you the sorry tale of my attempt to get a career development loan with Barclays bank, you’re doing a PhDwossit why wotsdat & “the computer says no” story).
Anyway the THES article explained how in the U.S and on the continent, particularly in France, intellectuals are much more valued and visible in society than here, despite the UK being home to some really great thinkers. I think perhaps it’s the black polo-necks and strong filterless ciggie smoking that does it for the French Public? Thinking has a history of chicness over the pond, but in the UK alas studying for a PhD, as a post-doc or as a senior university researcher normally means entering into a profession where you are unloved, underpaid and can expect to be made fun of by the rest of the world for being out of touch with the *real world* , badly dressed, and socially useless.

Although set in The States The Sky1 series Bones springs to mind here. Set in the fictious Jeffersonian institute a group of forensic anthropologists and science academics are mercifully constructed as speckie wierdie ones, unable to make eye contact or understand a joke. The main character Dr. Temperance Brennan is a genius but lets say is socially challenged. Humph- this does not help public perception & I therefore can’t explain why I enjoy the show, but I do. It must be that handsome David Boreanaz & Bone’s aka Dr Brennan’s snazzy jewelery which offset the stereotypes.

Knowing all about the negativity towards it, people still do research (and I really feel it is more of a lifestyle than a living in the UK in light of the lack of financial reward, but all encompassing ammount of energy and time it takes ). For the most part the people I know also do it with a genuine egalitarian belief and desire that they are giving voice to the marginal, helping unravel difficult problems or trying to shed light on complex social issues without much incentive other than the afore mentioned ‘greater good they just need to work on communicating the good to the good greater, geddit? Most are not in it for the money or the glory anyhow, believe me.

Well, the THES concluded with the question ‘why should UK academics have to engage with a public who doesn’t understand or even seem to like them very much?’ Even though I have been on the receiving end of ‘attitude’ towards what I do, I still do not think that this question is helpful.

I feel the real question is, can we afford not to engage? And the answer simply is no. And I shall come to the reasons why in the next installment….

Teenagers are better understood. Traffic wardens are more popular.

I presented a paper in the digital divide stream at the annual British Sociological Association conference last week, and one of the hot topics was the role of the public intellectual. The debate even made the front page of the Times Higher on Friday 13th.

Obviously as the article (by Rebecca Atwood and the quote from Professor Mitzel at Leicester University) pointed out – academics need to have something worthwhile to say in the first place, but Professor Mitzel also suggested that society and the greater good would benefit from drawing on academic research and taking what intellectuals have to say much more seriously.

It went on to say that academics need to take responsibility in preventing ivory tower syndrome, and to diverge from the confines of ‘in the know’ audiences or people who already have the capacity to understand the research i.e. other academics. They also need to take care with the sometimes obscure or obtuse language research is written in and present ideas in a way that suits different and wider audiences, but does not undermine or reduce the ideas. Yep yep, I concur, sounds good to me. I think there certainly is room in the UK for more public intellectuals, and it seems to me at the heart of the matter is the issue of communication and more specifically communication style.

Sociology and perhaps academia as a whole needs a big PR makeover. There are bridges to repair with media and policy makers, and indeed some compromises will have to be made in terms of the timescale rigorous research takes to turn around, language style, transparency etc etc so I was quite suprised at the right old hoohaa these suggestions seemed to stir up at the B.S.A do. I am not sure I understand the academic community’s own reluctance to make a few conciliations & changes? We need to roll with the homies and get down with the kids or risk only being invited to a dinosaurs picnic for the rest of our lives. Whats the big deal?

Part of what the Soc-sci community (myself included) investigate and try to understand is all about shifts in the way people perceive themselves and are understood by others in contemporary society, and how the role of the media and new technologies inform and drive these shifts. Well I do and I am anyway. So why on earth can’t sociology apply that knowledge to itself?

It time to get with the programme and realise that contemporary society has a new communication style and to reject it using an elitist or class based arguments of dumbing down, commodification and celebrification is to do intellectual thinking a disservice. It’s not a privilege to communicate research – it is a duty. And lets face it being able to write your ideas in plain English is a far cry from being papped in the pages of Heat or Grazia. There is quite a big gap between ideas and entering into public debate in a way the public can comprehend and the shallow ego driven persuit of celebrity for it’s own sake.

A follow up article ‘The UK’s unloved elite’ further in the paper really struck a personal cord with me, having more than once felt completely misunderstood or dismissed because of what I do (someday I will tell you the sorry tale of my attempt to get a career development loan with Barclays bank, you’re doing a PhDwossit why wotsdat & “the computer says no” story).
Anyway the THES article explained how in the U.S and on the continent, particularly in France, intellectuals are much more valued and visible in society than here, despite the UK being home to some really great thinkers. I think perhaps it’s the black polo-necks and strong filterless ciggie smoking that does it for the French Public? Thinking has a history of chicness over the pond, but in the UK alas studying for a PhD, as a post-doc or as a senior university researcher normally means entering into a profession where you are unloved, underpaid and can expect to be made fun of by the rest of the world for being out of touch with the *real world* , badly dressed, and socially useless.

Although set in The States The Sky1 series Bones springs to mind here. Set in the fictious Jeffersonian institute a group of forensic anthropologists and science academics are mercifully constructed as speckie wierdie ones, unable to make eye contact or understand a joke. The main character Dr. Temperance Brennan is a genius but lets say is socially challenged. Humph- this does not help public perception & I therefore can’t explain why I enjoy the show, but I do. It must be that handsome David Boreanaz & Bone’s aka Dr Brennan’s snazzy jewelery which offset the stereotypes.

Knowing all about the negativity towards it, people still do research (and I really feel it is more of a lifestyle than a living in the UK in light of the lack of financial reward, but all encompassing ammount of energy and time it takes ). For the most part the people I know also do it with a genuine egalitarian belief and desire that they are giving voice to the marginal, helping unravel difficult problems or trying to shed light on complex social issues without much incentive other than the afore mentioned ‘greater good they just need to work on communicating the good to the good greater, geddit? Most are not in it for the money or the glory anyhow, believe me.

Well, the THES concluded with the question ‘why should UK academics have to engage with a public who doesn’t understand or even seem to like them very much?’ Even though I have been on the receiving end of ‘attitude’ towards what I do, I still do not think that this question is helpful.

I feel the real question is, can we afford not to engage? And the answer simply is no. And I shall come to the reasons why in the next installment….

After thinking about it for sometime I have finally decided to start a blog.
There are very few blogs I read on a regular basis, yet I talk a lot about them because I am interesting in technology and culture, and I especially like to chat with the media and communication students I teach about blogging, with regards to ideas like the public sphere and citizen journalist.

However, I am not convinced as to the blog’s level of influence, or if blogs really change people’s world-view. I think we tend to read blogs by people or about things we are already interested in, whether it is social, business, political etc and then concur and feel pleased, or occasionally read blogs that we are directly opposed to, just to reaffirm the idea that we do not agree.

I sense blogs are something to do with impression management – like a brand or a brand extension maybe? They are another way of mediating ideas to other people –that is all to do with image organization and importantly the communication style. David Cameron et al certainly think so…. but that’s another post!

So am I branding myself, (something I intend to talk quite a bit about – as this is a big area of interest for me in my academic research), or perhaps I am entering into public debate, or perhaps writing a piece of journalism ?

Maybe one or conceivably all three – we’ll see…