June 6...Reimagining the Public Intellectual in Education (Gerstl-Pepin and Reyes and/or Hill)
Was there any part of these readings that you found exciting, hopeful, etc. with regard to the future of the academy? Are there any takeaways for you about how you might think about your own work moving forward?
Reyes and Gerstl-Pepin highlighted the extremely politicized nature of education. I appreciated their frank awareness of the need and value of finding ways to form meaningful connections between research in the academy and the community. I felt that this point related well to many of the class discussions from 702 about bridging the gap between research and practice.
ReplyDeleteThe section that made me feel the most hopeful was about making academic language accessible. I appreciated the perspective that researchers perhaps do/should/could feel an ethical responsibility to make their research both relevant and accessible to the general public. I liked the idea of utilizing alternative mediums to express research findings. Considering the possibility of using methods such as conversation, personal narrative, and cartoons has the potential to break down some of the barriers that divide the world of academia from the” real-world” to which it desires to be relevant. In thinking about my future work, the biggest takeaway for me was to think critically and creatively about ways to bridge the gap between academia and the public. Again, in thinking about language use, I believe clarity and relevance should take precedence over seemingly impressive academic language which has a tendency to alienate readers and create linguistic hierarchies.
A few years ago, some office at VCU planned this two day “learn about research” symposium that included topics from navigating the IRB process, to making connections with state agencies as well as ways to make university research more consumable by the general public. One of the methods suggested to achieve this was publishing papers in open sources journals so that users did not need to pay for an expensive subscription. This was the first time I heard of open source journals and I have been a little disappointed about the lack of them being mentioned since. I do not expect every professor to talk about open source journals, but I think as PhD students we should learn about them at some point because if used effectively they can form a critical connection between the public and our research. I appreciated that both articles touched on this notion and also pointed out that it is not good enough to just reach the audience, researchers must also make their content accessible. I think this may be a big roadblock for many researchers, old and new, to overcome. For years, students are taught to think, read and write a certain way. If they choose to engage the community, they are studying they may need to toss some of their formal education out the window in order to strip down their questions, arguments and findings to the bare bones that need to be communicated with their audience.
ReplyDeleteIt made me hopeful to read about the importance of connecting with the community being researched in both articles. I first heard about this concept of ‘researching with’ during my masters’ program and thought then, why doesn’t everyone capable of conducting research in this way do it? I soon realized that good, sound community engaged research takes a lot of time, dedication and intentional action. I think the field of education is a good home for community engaged research and I would be interested to learn about who within our school is doing this kind of work.
***Kayla
To start, the book that this chapter is from was published in January of 2015. It has been over four years since the publication, but not much has changed. The reason I bring this up is because there is a part of the chapter that references the urgency. This term urgent stood out to me. Change leadership is very intriguing to me. Creating a sense of urgency is a crucial step to establishing change. Although this chapter echos the importance of making connections between research and application and mention the need to make this an urgent issue, I wonder if the author fell into the trap that they warn other of. Doing research and publishing findings, opinions, ideas, etc. is not enough to make a change. There are many significant steps that preface and echo research.
ReplyDeleteThe author touches on some of these steps. For example, being credible and collaborative with a diverse team. This does not solely mean diverse in culture, but also diverse in opinions and perspectives. In addition, making learning accessible is crucial. This means in terms of language used and also ways of physically accessing the research, but what about the step that needs to precede this? Making people aware that it exists. Again, this brings us back to creating a sense of urgency.
How do we as leaders in our fields, make others not only aware of the current challenges in education, but also want to play a role in the enhancement?
Reyes and Gerstl-Pepin opened the text suggesting that there was a need for diversity in voices and thought. I definitely agree, however the text goes on to explain that it was difficult finding voices from people of color to contribute to the text. I feel like that often becomes a common narrative in academia and especially in education studies. There is this call for diversity and disclaimer about it being difficult to find it. Now, that I am not sure is very true. The text goes on to include bell hooks, Lorde and other writers and I think made another point really clear in that these scholars are often stuck in women & gender studies and not always fully integrated across disciplines.
ReplyDeleteTo further the notion of "public scholarship" I was excited to see how they integrated the media as a source. Social media has both provided platforms for public intellectuals (despite any academic pursuits) and also promotes the work of public scholars in a way that makes academia accessible and in some cases even validates the information being shared. Even academics who are currently studying, are using these tools as way to share information, gather feedback, locate resources and other scholars. It is a direct line to the practitioners and highlights there work in a centralized space. This section reminded me of how creative academics can be with the use of social media; providing short bits of facts or facilitating twitter discussions on important topics. It is almost as if social media is the way to make academia and scholarship more accessible. Using social media isn't the perfect answer but it definitely provides an access point. It spreads academic scholarship faster and more succinctly (even though at times it can be oversimplified in a 100 characters or less) across the world.
I found the readings intriguing, but I wonder a lot about the idea of a public intellectual and if, in a society that de-values education so much, there is still such a thing. Or is "public intellectual" an oxymoron like "famous poet?" I think there are two factors, well, maybe more, but at least two, that contribute to this. The first is, as we often discuss, the assumption of elitism in education. The idea process begins with the realization that anyone who has the time to study and to deeply engage with topics like morality and ethics is privileged (to have the time, to have the access to the ideas). From there, it seems a quick leap to disdaining this sort of engagement, because the idea isn't that everyone should have access, it's that those who do are somehow disconnected from reality. It only took me two internet searches to find this quote by John Adams: "I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain." Yes, we need a moment to acknowledge the inherent gender and racial bias here, but I think it also sums up historical American thought regarding how we feel about the nature of education - that it must serve practical purposes before there can be any enjoyment in it, that those focused on war can take no time for the arts. In this kind of thinking, there is no room for the public intellectual, because who would pay attention to him? I would be very interested to pose the question to a classroom not composed of doctoral students - who are the true public intellectuals? Here's a guess: Alex Trebek, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kelly Ripa? "Public" overshadows "intellectual;" edutainment rules, dogs drool.
ReplyDeleteThe second point I would make is that the notion of an intellectual as something to which people should aspire has been utterly replaced, I would argue by ideas about lifestyle gurus and the kind of wisdom that can translate to instagram or twitter (do I sound cranky? I don't mean to sound cranky). We have much more reverence for someone who has a perfectly organized pantry or a kickin' yoga routine (and I promise you I aspire to both) than we do for anything that we can't absorb via our phones. A true intellectual process takes time and more than 200 characters. The spark can be there, some dialogue can begin, and yes, revolution can be wrought, but I think we error when we suggest that there's an intellectual completion to the process.
I listened to a podcast driving back from class on Tuesday that featured that amazing public intellectual, LeVar Burton. He talked about how Reading Rainbow was devised as a complement, a way in, to the actual process of reading, and how reading (as opposed to movie/tv etc.) was the way to trigger creativity, to work the brain. It is when we mistake the opening allez or the initial parrry for the finished project that we diminish the power of the process, and we wind up seeing the word "intellectual" as derogatory. - CM
Since I first learned that there were things like social scholars and popculture scholars I've been intrigued by this movement to make academic research accessible outside of the academy and to reimagine the role of the public intellectual in ed that Reyes and Gerstl-Pepin described in their chapter.
ReplyDeleteThere is an actual book titled Wanna Hide Something from a N****, Put it in a Book. I've never read the book and I have no interest in reading it, but I think for many year the academy functioned with that un/spoken belief. Just recently I told a friend that the doc student life has had several moments where I felt like I was fighting for access to a Whites-Only-All-Boys-Club. So I appreciate Reyes and Gerstl-Pepin for acknowledging (like so many other people, although it does not seem like the collective/ ubiquitous we have figured out how to do so meaningfully or on a larger scale) the need for more diversity in the academy.
I think the acknowledgment of social media as a legitimate means to have discussions and share information is encouraging and opens up more seats and the metaphoric table for diverse academics. I certainly feel inspired to know that I can use this media to disseminate the ideas I care about and engage in potentially fruitful conversations. The one drawback to social media is that it is free and open to any/everyone, which means a lot of opinions (many of which may not be founded) can exist and hinder thoughtful progression. Nevertheless, I kind of like the idea/ hope to be the Audre Lorde of the digital age.
I appreciated the notion that was brought forth in the Reyes and Gerstl-Pepin article that we have to embrace the non-typical avenues of scholarship. Research has had to take in to account the public and ever-changing ways that people are receiving and taking-in information. They mention engaging in non-academic digital outlets to share knowledge. I think that is what could really change how research is shared and applied to practice. In this course, we have all wondered what our research will really mean for the future of our field and I think that is by using non-traditional outlets. The academic world is going to have to break-away form the structure and tradition that they know so well to incorporate new avenues of sharing knowledge. Kristina mentions the politicized nature of education research which can occur when it's shared through media and digital outlets but we all have to learn to navigate those issues as well as opportunity that could arise from being able to share things more broadly. I don't think this discredits research but allows it to become more attainable and more easily applied. Maybe a colleague doesn't have time to read an article that talks about a new theory or method but they can spend thirty minutes on their commute listening to a podcast or news station with that same information. This article also made me think about the importance of ensuring that all voices, perspectives, identities are around the table when conceptualizing research. If we are thinking about the public intellectual, I think we have to ensure that educational research is representative of the public.
ReplyDeleteAllison
I agree with the authors’ discussion of the argument by Ayers that “We all experience life, think, and learn—we are each and all of us, then, intellectuals.” This argument asks us to accept and acknowledge that no one person or group of people has a “lock” on intellect or the capacity to be an intellectual people. Throughout the text, there seems to be this idea that intellect and its possession occurs on a spectrum and is only accessible by a few. I think this thinking is dangerous and seeks to thwart attempts to challenge and dismantle a public-school education system that is scared by inequity in access and resources to children and families of color. All people, with the intention to address policies that are inequitable and perpetuate a cycle of discrimination, have something to offer that can positively impact the education system.
ReplyDeleteWhat we experience, think, and learn makes us all intellectuals. Accepting this allows us to consider the work necessary in communities beyond “the borders of academia.” This serves as a reminder of the importance of social justice in education. Academia needs communities and vice versa. If we accept that all people’s lived experiences have the possibility to positively influence education and community, we can continue building capacity to work at micro and macro levels. The authors write about debates, which I think of as discussions and challenges, as a way to do the work required of intellectuals. They expand further by commenting that engagement occurs on a spectrum. The idea here is that all intellectuals have something to contribute and no way is greater or lesser than the other. My takeaway, having an elitist attitude about who is a public intellectual hinders forward movement and negatively impacts action that helps to get the work of the people done.
Hill's (2012) piece really spoke to me. Primarily, it told me that I need a lot more work within communities that I want to serve and more work in public speaking. However, the broader importance of the piece, to me, is that being a public intellectual, one not directly tied to academia, is possible. I want to do work that solves issues that affect students within communities and that builds stronger connections between communities and schools. Understanding how to conduct public interest and public intellectual work can make a huge difference for communities by responding directly to their needs and questions (public interest), but also provides the flexibility to conduct sound research and provide opportunity and answers for the entire school system (public intellectual).
ReplyDeleteThe Reyes and Gerstl-Pepin’s focus on making academic writing and language accessible to the public intrigued me. There appears to be a dilemma in academia regarding publications – one side wanting to make sure that scholars are able to share their research with the public and yet there are some professors that feel as if their work will not be respected by other academics if their work is made available to a wider audience. This “debate” had me reflect back on that graph of research (hard versus soft and applied versus pure sciences) that we love so much in this class. And I begin to wonder, are the subject areas that are more valued the ones that are not accessible or understood by a wider audience? Are the subjects that are accessible and understood in a language that many understand the types of research that don’t have as much prestige or value? I want the research that I conduct in my career to have an impact on others and I believe the best way to do that is through using language that is understood by the masses. I do hope that my research might provoke policy change, but in order for that to happen not only do policy makers and other academics need to understand my research but so do teachers and parents, who definitely do have the ability to comprehend the language but do not have the time nor the energy to peel away these “layers” of unnecessary “frou-frou” language that our writing can display. I believe academic language does not need a thesaurus readily available at every word, but I feel that message is often lost among academics. You can create work that is intelligent and succinct but still be understood by the masses. This makes me feel that we often sacrifice our need to make an impact among a wide variety of people for our need to be valued among other academics.
ReplyDelete“You can't be what you can't see.” --Marian Wright Edelman
ReplyDeleteIs the quote I thought about when reading the articles, because without resources or strong voices in my community I don't think I would be pursuing a doctoral degree. The central theme of the Gerstl-Pepin, Reyes, and Hill is the connection to the communities outside of academia.The articles discuss diversity and how different voices about educational issues are needed for the impact of research on communities. I think having research that can be easily translated to the public is important. It makes me hopeful that what we do reaches communities in need or inspire students and others, like policy makers. Being a public intellectual should also not discredit people who are in those communities who do not have the degrees to prove their intellectual worth or ability to speak on a topic. As we make economic and technological advances I hope this gives more people the ability to see value in their voices and to know that when people in academia have studies they are able to make comments or suggest changes.
With current issues in the news and the questions that I see from the public, I think that both of these article address the need of making the issues both readily available to the public as well as easily translated for the public. I can see where anybody that is in a specialized field uses the jargon and such and [not meaning to] expects others to understand. Therefore, I think if we want to reach others in non-academic communities, we need to find a way to provide research in a way that is meaningful and easier to comprehend. These articles made me think about my future research and how I should guide my writing and language that really reach both those in academia and those who are not. Additionally, technology continues to evolve rapidly, so as researchers, I think that we need to adapt to those changes. I can assume that there is a decrease in the amount of actual paper material that is being read with newer generations. Most people prefer digital documents and media of some sort. I think the paragraph about institutional support in the Gerstl-Pepin article is very important and really stuck with me. I agree that there should be an expansion of public intellectual activities that help scholars related to the public and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Reyes & Pepin, I couldn’t help but think of an experience that I had during my last year in the classroom. The authors discuss the research to practice gap and argue that this could be mitigated as researchers act like “public scholars.” I don’t disagree that increasing minority voices, making academic language accessible, and engaging in the news media as it stands in the contemporary age are all things that can contribute to this change. I don’t think the authors spent enough time focusing on another barrier in educational research which is the lack of decision-making power that parents, teachers, and principals have in their schools.
ReplyDeleteI did a quick search of Giangreco’s cartoons that were mentioned in the chapter and it turned up one that I had seen before and it actually fits this discussion quite well. The image shows a student in a wheelchair asking for the ramp to the school to get shoveled and the adult says that they will shovel the ramp after they finish shoveling the stairs. The student replies that if the ramp is shoveled first, all of the students can get in (I couldn't upload it here but you can see if by following this link: https://twitter.com/msjobillington/status/949272144332185602)
In my experience, when a school under performs, there is such a surge of “new” initiatives and investment that teachers and principals, and also parents get their voices taken away. For example, during my last year in the classroom, I noticed that several of my older students (both with disabilities and without) were struggling to count groups on coins. I spend a few days teaching them “touch points”- a strategy where students use kinesthetic movements to process value of coins and count them in a group. It’s a research-supported strategy in the sense that it relies on the theory of multiple intelligences AND that I have used it before with younger students with great success. Well my team members were intrigued so I used a planning period to train them and share materials and we practiced and they were excited to solve a problem in their classrooms. Fast forward to next week (when other teachers got word of the strategy working with students) and an e-mail coming to whole staff from the math instructional coach for the building declaring that “touch points” was a strategy for special education students and should only be used with students who had IEPs. According to her, it was not a strategy that was part of the new math curriculum. Humph.
The point here is that we may actually need to take the concept of a “public scholar” one step further to actually solve the research to practice gap in education. It may be necessary for all of us future researchers to head back to the schools that we came from, wave our degrees around and make it happen.
Nicole Peterson
Gerstle-Pepin and Reyes begin by acknowledging their experience of the disconnect between knowledge about education through research and issues facing our culture. I appreciated their focus on an issue that we have discussed numerous times in class; our discussion in class has often brought us back to the question of why research is often disconnected from K12 teachers. However, their point seemed even more disconcerting: research is disconnected from real issues like poverty or racism. I am encouraged by the Educational Psychologist issue this year that attempted to acknowledge and address some of these issues, giving voice to real problems. However, another layer that Gerstle-Pepin and Reyes add to the problem is that researchers don’t share their information in places or language that will affect change. I agree with this, and wonder if their suggestions and Hill’s suggestions on how to become a “public intellectual” will be heard. Hill’s call for academic authors to exercise their right for open access fixes one of the problems (free access). Additionally, I am encouraged by what I have seen of podcasts and publicly-focused online media that translate research into publicly consumable and applicable information. It seems that as world-wide internet access increases, the place of the researcher as "public intellectual" has changed. Both articles acknowledged the murkiness created by misinformation given as research; additionally, both articles stressed the need for researchers to enter into these debates with answers based on research. In light of our previous discussions on inquiry, I am challenged to think through whether the questions we ask are questions that the public would be aided by finding an answer. I think one take-away is that this type of scholarship may not be encouraged out-right by the academy right now, but is especially valuable, so thinking through my questions and beginning to engage in this type of knowledge-sharing is possible and necessary.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad that “the degree to which one is able to practice scholarly work depends on one’s placement in the academy.” I hope to do what JuliAnna Avila calls “multi-directional work” to meet the tenure requirements but also engage in larger, “world changing” public service.
ReplyDeleteI think the research to practice gap is larger in areas of D1 schools. I hear people talking about how much VCU gives back to the community, but I have yet to see it. In many research projects we are just collecting data. Don’t get me wrong! It’s very important and could be used to make important changes but for the time being we aren’t helping anyone. Also, if researchers are only interested in checking the boxes for tenure then the data probably won’t be used for good. It’ll just be published so that maybe someone else will do something with it. I hope to use my internship opportunity to learn more about making meaningful change.
After reading the Reyes/Gerstl-Pepin and Ohanian chapters I found myself wondering if Big Edu is the new Big Pharma. The alarming force that the “self-serving corporate oligarchy” (satisfyingly phrased by Ohanian) exerts over educational policy, funding, and public opinion is disheartening not only because the voices of few wealthy and powerful (mainly white, mainly male) elites are given amplified pride-of-place above those with actual expertise and direct engagement in education, but even more so because the impact of public opinion and educational policy decisions maintains the very inequitable systems and oppressive structures that keep those with power in power. Ohanian’s chapter compels those of us working and researching in education to be, first, aware of how educational issues are presented and framed in public arenas and to be, second, willing and ready to add our voices to the greater conversation as forcefully and publicly as we are able. As she implores: “Silence implies accommodation and feeds capitulation”. Pointing to the media’s marked preference for citing leaders of super PACs and hedge funds when reporting on education rather than “with an acclaimed scholar very familiar with the nitty-gritty of how schools work” Ohanian’s chapter offers a follow-the-money kind of Deep Throat road map for how impactful educational policy decisions are made and the extent to which these decisions support corporate interests and values. While I have just recently developed a small degree of statistical literacy which allows me to decipher the claims and validity of educational research, I am aware of how poorly equipped I am to unravel how educational policy decisions are influenced, made, and presented through the media. Ohanian’s chapter asserts that though the media favors and makes public the voices of the rich and powerful over those who can actually be considered education experts and intellectuals, new media may offer potentially powerful tools for following the money, making our voices heard, and using our expertise and experiences to advocate fiercely for educational policies that are informed by the needs and best interests of our students – all students –not the interests of the corporate oligarchy.
ReplyDeleteThe very first thing I noted that was empowering (after further review) in the Reyes and Gerstl-Pepin reading was not specifically article related. They mentioned that women and minorities were scarce in the “public intellectual” realm as what seemed to be an unfortunate circumstance (p. 140). However, they managed to “forget” to capitalize an African American feminist’s name. This bothered me. Therefore, I took my query to google to investigate. To my surprise, this was done out of respect as I found out that she chose the name “bell hook” as a pseudonym and specifically elected not to capitalize it so that more focus would be placed on her works as opposed to who she was (https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/hooks-bell-gloria-jean-watkins-1952/). As I stated before, I felt empowered by this. She felt so strongly about her works that she did not even need people to know her. She wanted them to know her thoughts, beliefs, and ideas regarding things she felt passionate about in order to promote change.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the future of the academy is concerned, some terminology use stood out to me. “Movement intellectual” piques my interest much more than “public intellectual.” When I first saw “public intellectual,” I thought of it as simply meaning exactly what it appears to be: a well-known (local, national, or international) intelligent person. I looked it up and was right, but my mind moves me to ask, “So, what are they doing with it?” “Movement intellectual” does not give specifics. However, someone deserving of that title is likely taking action and effecting change with their intellect instead of simply being a public figure that may or may not be doing much for their community or field. The popularity of agency gives me hope in academia. Some researchers may publish solely for authorship, tenure, and/or notoriety. However, I believe that those who really care about their field and try their best to act on their research or at least encourage action on the part of practitioners will serve the greatest good.
Hill specifically identified a public intellectual as “an individual whose intellectual production is articulated to a non-academic community.” This did not change much about how I saw it in the Reyes and Gerstl-Pepin reading outside of the greater focus of knowledge being shared directly to the public. The Hill reading made me think more about this dissemination of information to the public and how important it is to do so. One would assume that everyone should understand this, but some public have hidden agendas. They may not want pertinent research to reach the masses if it is contrary to their platform and supporters’ goals. I did not know that some scholars looked to public intellectuals as inferior. This should not be the case if the knowledge being disseminated is not inferior to that of scholarly articles within “scholarly communities.” I was taken aback when reading about the struggle of Dr. Cornell West and his acceptance in the scholarly community. However, I do believe that those who took issue with him had more against him than just his intent to spread knowledge to the public.
DeleteHill ended his article on a somewhat pleasant note. I appreciate him giving steps for which the academy should proceed with as we move forward in the future. If these tips are followed, with the understanding that the public (those who scholarly work should benefit most) should be involved in the learning and understanding of research findings, I believe that the benefits of the research will be more fruitful with more “hands on deck.”
I don't know if these readings make me hopeful about the future of the academy. They do make me hopeful about the work of scholars and researchers in education as they think about their role in the academy and the community. It makes me hopeful about the work that I want to do and making an impact beyond the academy. I liked Marc Lamont Hill's definition of what a public intellectual is; "an individual whose intellectual production is articulated to a non-academic community" (p. 155). The takeaways that I found lead me think more deeply about who I'm trying to connect to and impact with my research; how does my work act as cultural criticism; and how can it possibly shape policy or be applied in educational contexts. I think having these things in mind will help me to process how I want to go forward with my work and choices I want to make as I build my career.
ReplyDelete