Academic Blogging

Speaking of Professor Cooper, his recent post on academic blogging looks at the pros and cons of blogging as a law professor. Coming from a different part of the academy (English), I'd say his reflections are correct, as are the comments he quotes from Kieran Healy. In a bit of synchronicity, Scripting News recently explained why academics should blog—and why their institutions should encourage them to do so:

First, know that universities thrive on having their experts visible outside the university. Not just publishing in academic journals, which most alumni don't read, but being called in as experts on radio talk shows, esp NPR. That's how you reach into their wallets, show them why they should be proud of their alma mater. Pride gets the money flowing.

So how do you get your professors on the radar, as acknowledged experts who can communicate to everyday people? With a weblog of course. And then realize that other bloggers (like me!) are consumers of expertise. We need experts to turn to just like the radio guys do. So there's lots of value in staking out the still largely virgin territory of expertise flowing through weblogs.

It makes perfect sense to me. In fact, academics would be the best bloggers for two reasons: First, they're writers. Sure, a lot of them write abstract, hard to read crap, but perhaps blogging would force them to be more clear and concise. (We could hope.) Second, they're experts in something that the rest of the world probably knows very little about. Many of the best blogs come from just such people—people with knowledge and perspectives that would be hard to find anywhere else. But, not surprisingly, I predict academics will be slow to take up blogging—at least academics outside of law. They'll think they're above it, that it's not "serious" enough for them. I tried to encourage a professor of mine—a huge luminary in his field—to take blogging seriously about a year ago, and he just scoffed and said "it's just like a discussion board. It's a fad. Besides, no one will ever read those things." Perhaps he's right, but perhaps he should also consider the increasing cultural, social, and political irrelevance of the humanities before he dismisses an opportunity to reach a wider public. Academia is pointless if the work done inside the "ivory tower" never gets out of its hallowed halls. If academics would work harder to make more than a dozen people care about or understand what they're doing, maybe they wouldn't find themselves panicked about the future of their disciplines.

Yes, that is what you call a tangent. I'll stop now.

Posted May 13, 2003 06:58 PM | meta-blogging