I left a PhD. program in part because I saw Kristoff's "culture of exclusivity" materializing before me. I thought I would need to choose between addressing my research and writing to academia/theorists or to practitioners/a general public who could consider and maybe use my ideas in ways other than folks tied to post-secondary institutions.
That said, there are preferences (and bias) from the practitioner side as well with regard to writing style and conventions. It seems to me that academics write for people who a. have also been initiated into their (sometimes) esoteric niches, and b. have (or are expected to have) the professional time allotted to sift thoughtfully through the text. Practitioners are much more often readers than writers because their main focus is implementing ideas. For this reason, they may prefer more "practical" prose written not to provoke thought or introduce and prove new concepts, but instead to convey who, what, where, when, how as succinctly as possible.
I was stymied by this divide and, in fact, was chastised by both camps for my supposed adherence to one or the other. It is unfortunate that these rhetorical differences in discourse and in expectations curb dialog between these groups. I gave up on the academic route to finding a way to bridge the gap, but I'm glad to see others still working toward that goal!
Thank you so much for these insightful comments, Paula! I think your point about academics having time to read is so important. We do have more time for reading because its culturally sanctioned by the profession, but we've also gotten really good at skimming texts that are too long as other demands on our time build. Both realities of time tell us that often less is more and simple could be preferred in a lot of cases. I was just reading a piece lamenting the length of tenure dossiers that often don't get read word for word, but skimmed. Why do they have to be so long and detailed? Thanks again for your insights and experiences here. I'm glad you figured out what worked for you and what did not!
You’ve investigated this issue so thoroughly here and I agree with your points. It’s so difficult because the ideal is be able to do both - and reach several audiences, perhaps inviting the “excluded” to enter into that world if they are so inclined to understand further. But the reality of what universities want and the time we each have is different. Some are able to successfully do both and I find a lot of Substack academics doing this. I find occasionally I really want to use that esoteric language for the reasons you say (clarity, economy, avoiding ideological norms...) but it might get lost or turn people off. I actually find it fun to code switch among kinds of writing, but this is more possible because I’m independent now. Thanks for some great considerations, especially in regards to Kristoff.
Thanks, Kate! I love thinking of this as "code-switching," because that's exactly what it is. I think the hardest thing for me is that I often want multiple audiences at once, but the reality is that is just not possible most of the time because of the constrains I list here. I will be posting about "crossover" books later on because I think there are ways to do this well.
When I entered my PhD program, I was really passionate about “public scholarship” and using the power of my position to comment on public debates. I had the tiniest taste of this via semi-viral tweet (in May 2021) and it was... awful? People personally attacked me for things that had nothing to do with the content of the tweet and I was afraid in that particular situation that I might be doxxed. It was a high-strung time and maybe Twitter is just not my medium. But now I live in Florida and I frankly prefer the safety of my paywalled journal articles 🙈 I am lucky to work on a professional field that has a fair amount of interaction with practitioners built in (urban planning), and I do hope to write for the practitioner publications in the future. But I also wonder what can be done when you can’t count on your university to protect you if you comment publicly?
This is so real, Meaghan! Being a public scholar does mean opening yourself up to this sort of visibility. I've experienced this too, and it's really concerning. Unfortunately women, and especially women of color, experience this so much more than men do. I agree that it's a major factor to consider if you'd like to put your work out there. The more your work becomes visible, the more likely you encounter the dredges of the internet. One of the reasons I really enjoy Substack is that, so far, we don't really see this happening right now. I'll be so sad if that changes. Thanks so much for bringing up this important point!
This is a very interesting topic and insightful. Something I dm navigating as an independent scholar (non funded at that). More importantly your acknowledgement of the additional challenges for women of Global Majority Heritage is appreciated. That is a whole other thing to navigate in itself. How I am positioned poses challenges ( writing at the intersection of Race, class, gender and religion). I have to be mindful of drawing on lived experience to safe guard writing publically, yet it is a valid way of 'knowing'. I have followers that are leaders in their field or have influence, clergy and academics amongst them and because of my Substack it has given visibility and showcased my thinking enough to be approached and encouraged to go for funding and university affiliation. I saw this work as a calling almost. At the same time I belong to an academic Black Religious Scholars mentoring group and feel on the edge of the inside as mose of the are PhD candidates or post doc and have time to read the scholarly work before we meet for discussion. It's a challenge navigating all that. Particularly when structures and systems place you at d disadvantage to start with.
Thank you so much for commenting, Natasha! I found this point particularly powerful: "I have to be mindful of drawing on lived experience to safe guard writing publically, yet it is a valid way of 'knowing'." Writing about one's lived experience is so important for groups who've traditionally been marginalized in the academy and broader society, but putting oneself out there is not always safe for these groups especially. It's the paradox of visibility. We can gain benefits from it, as you've noted, but there's also risks.
Yes. It takes a lot of wisdom to get it right. Your choices have to be curated, creative and behind a wall of scholars on whose shoulders you stand - ensuring that you are never completely standing out there 'alone' and overly exposed. Thanks for your work. It's helpful and I enjoy reading it.
I left a PhD. program in part because I saw Kristoff's "culture of exclusivity" materializing before me. I thought I would need to choose between addressing my research and writing to academia/theorists or to practitioners/a general public who could consider and maybe use my ideas in ways other than folks tied to post-secondary institutions.
That said, there are preferences (and bias) from the practitioner side as well with regard to writing style and conventions. It seems to me that academics write for people who a. have also been initiated into their (sometimes) esoteric niches, and b. have (or are expected to have) the professional time allotted to sift thoughtfully through the text. Practitioners are much more often readers than writers because their main focus is implementing ideas. For this reason, they may prefer more "practical" prose written not to provoke thought or introduce and prove new concepts, but instead to convey who, what, where, when, how as succinctly as possible.
I was stymied by this divide and, in fact, was chastised by both camps for my supposed adherence to one or the other. It is unfortunate that these rhetorical differences in discourse and in expectations curb dialog between these groups. I gave up on the academic route to finding a way to bridge the gap, but I'm glad to see others still working toward that goal!
Thank you so much for these insightful comments, Paula! I think your point about academics having time to read is so important. We do have more time for reading because its culturally sanctioned by the profession, but we've also gotten really good at skimming texts that are too long as other demands on our time build. Both realities of time tell us that often less is more and simple could be preferred in a lot of cases. I was just reading a piece lamenting the length of tenure dossiers that often don't get read word for word, but skimmed. Why do they have to be so long and detailed? Thanks again for your insights and experiences here. I'm glad you figured out what worked for you and what did not!
You’ve investigated this issue so thoroughly here and I agree with your points. It’s so difficult because the ideal is be able to do both - and reach several audiences, perhaps inviting the “excluded” to enter into that world if they are so inclined to understand further. But the reality of what universities want and the time we each have is different. Some are able to successfully do both and I find a lot of Substack academics doing this. I find occasionally I really want to use that esoteric language for the reasons you say (clarity, economy, avoiding ideological norms...) but it might get lost or turn people off. I actually find it fun to code switch among kinds of writing, but this is more possible because I’m independent now. Thanks for some great considerations, especially in regards to Kristoff.
Thanks, Kate! I love thinking of this as "code-switching," because that's exactly what it is. I think the hardest thing for me is that I often want multiple audiences at once, but the reality is that is just not possible most of the time because of the constrains I list here. I will be posting about "crossover" books later on because I think there are ways to do this well.
Absolutely, that’s so difficult. Curious to read about those books!
When I entered my PhD program, I was really passionate about “public scholarship” and using the power of my position to comment on public debates. I had the tiniest taste of this via semi-viral tweet (in May 2021) and it was... awful? People personally attacked me for things that had nothing to do with the content of the tweet and I was afraid in that particular situation that I might be doxxed. It was a high-strung time and maybe Twitter is just not my medium. But now I live in Florida and I frankly prefer the safety of my paywalled journal articles 🙈 I am lucky to work on a professional field that has a fair amount of interaction with practitioners built in (urban planning), and I do hope to write for the practitioner publications in the future. But I also wonder what can be done when you can’t count on your university to protect you if you comment publicly?
This is so real, Meaghan! Being a public scholar does mean opening yourself up to this sort of visibility. I've experienced this too, and it's really concerning. Unfortunately women, and especially women of color, experience this so much more than men do. I agree that it's a major factor to consider if you'd like to put your work out there. The more your work becomes visible, the more likely you encounter the dredges of the internet. One of the reasons I really enjoy Substack is that, so far, we don't really see this happening right now. I'll be so sad if that changes. Thanks so much for bringing up this important point!
This is a very interesting topic and insightful. Something I dm navigating as an independent scholar (non funded at that). More importantly your acknowledgement of the additional challenges for women of Global Majority Heritage is appreciated. That is a whole other thing to navigate in itself. How I am positioned poses challenges ( writing at the intersection of Race, class, gender and religion). I have to be mindful of drawing on lived experience to safe guard writing publically, yet it is a valid way of 'knowing'. I have followers that are leaders in their field or have influence, clergy and academics amongst them and because of my Substack it has given visibility and showcased my thinking enough to be approached and encouraged to go for funding and university affiliation. I saw this work as a calling almost. At the same time I belong to an academic Black Religious Scholars mentoring group and feel on the edge of the inside as mose of the are PhD candidates or post doc and have time to read the scholarly work before we meet for discussion. It's a challenge navigating all that. Particularly when structures and systems place you at d disadvantage to start with.
Thank you so much for commenting, Natasha! I found this point particularly powerful: "I have to be mindful of drawing on lived experience to safe guard writing publically, yet it is a valid way of 'knowing'." Writing about one's lived experience is so important for groups who've traditionally been marginalized in the academy and broader society, but putting oneself out there is not always safe for these groups especially. It's the paradox of visibility. We can gain benefits from it, as you've noted, but there's also risks.
Yes. It takes a lot of wisdom to get it right. Your choices have to be curated, creative and behind a wall of scholars on whose shoulders you stand - ensuring that you are never completely standing out there 'alone' and overly exposed. Thanks for your work. It's helpful and I enjoy reading it.